• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Nice "pro" news story ---

Unintentionally funny moments from this clip:

Radio suit: "It makes FM sound like compact discs (*) and AM sound like FM." (A real knee-slapper! Should have been: "It makes FM sound like....well, FM, but with less coverage. Makes AM sound like Darth Vader.")

Best Buy chick: "HD Radio is the perfect Christmas gift for anyone - because you KNOW nobody has HD!"

(*) Radio suit hasn't gotten the word that the term "compact discs" stopped being used somewhere around 1989 and thus sounds about as contemporary as "phonograph records."
 
Savage said:
Unintentionally funny moments from this clip:

Radio suit: "It makes FM sound like compact discs (*) and AM sound like FM." (A real knee-slapper! Should have been: "It makes FM sound like....well, FM, but with less coverage. Makes AM sound like Darth Vader.")

Best Buy chick: "HD Radio is the perfect Christmas gift for anyone - because you KNOW nobody has HD!"

(*) Radio suit hasn't gotten the word that the term "compact discs" stopped being used somewhere around 1989 and thus sounds about as contemporary as "phonograph records."

Should have been: "It makes FM sound like....well, FM, but with less coverage.

Permit my rude intervention with truth; IBOC eliminates multipath distortion, eliminates noise floor, widens separation, and relieves the clipping of highs brought on by the quest for "loudness'

AM iboc eliminates distortion, gives an apparent increase in frequency response...and something else.....oh yeah,stereo.

Not bad for a "failed" technology.

BTW: "Compact Disc" is a trademarked logo still used on every device that utilizes same. Just thought I'd let you know.

Lino
 
LinoNYC said:
AM iboc eliminates distortion, gives an apparent increase in frequency response...and something else.....oh yeah,stereo.

Sorry, but the AM codec does not "eliminate" distortion -- it substitutes a different, more dissonant form of distortion.

As for the apparent increase in frequency response, I liken this to the apparent sweetness of saccharin, compared with cane sugar. Yes, it causes a sensation, but it just doesn't taste right.

Oh yeah, AM stereo. Didn't the marketplace express its feelings on that 20 years ago?

So what does this "revolutionary" digital system do for daytimers that want to provide night service? Or, fulltimers that can't adequately serve their markets after sunset due to restrictive night patterns? Or, AM stations with narrowband antenna systems that can't even pass the IBOC signal?

If AM IBOC (in its present form) actually offered a real advantage to the majority of stations, why were hundreds of comments just filed by AM broadcasters (including myself) in support of FM translators?
 
Sorry, but the AM codec does not "eliminate" distortion -- it substitutes a different, more dissonant form of distortion.

-Your opinion, the average listener would probably disagree

As for the apparent increase in frequency response, I liken this to the apparent sweetness of saccharin, compared with cane sugar. Yes, it causes a sensation, but it just doesn't taste right.

Again, to the average person the rolled-off often distorted audio of most AM radios isn't very appealing. Think for a minute then answer why within less than two generations AM radio went from dominant in all age groups to a medium catering to old people with hucksters and reactionary crackpots?



Oh yeah, AM stereo. Didn't the marketplace express its feelings on that 20 years ago?

Yep, because it didn't address the inherant flaws in AM reception.


So what does this "revolutionary" digital system do for daytimers that want to provide night service? Or, fulltimers that can't adequately serve their markets after sunset due to restrictive night patterns? Or, AM stations with narrowband antenna systems that can't even pass the IBOC signal?

Well I would like to have bought an apartment on fifth avenue overlooking Central Park, what i could afford was two blocks east of that.

I know that's not an answer you'll appreciate but alot of those stations are relics of a time when the public had fewer media choices. Look at how many got night authorizations, power increases and still can't get an audience.

If AM IBOC (in its present form) actually offered a real advantage to the majority of stations, why were hundreds of comments just filed by AM broadcasters (including myself) in support of FM translators?

I do wish them good luck but there are likely far more struggling Am's than open FM slots, even if the band is expanded you're still asking listeners to buy a new receiver.

Lino
 
LinoNYC said:
Well I would like to have bought an apartment on fifth avenue overlooking Central Park, what i could afford was two blocks east of that.

I would have settled for Jersey City at 1983 prices; at least someplace with the promise of true potential. But, unfortunately, all that AM IBOC offers most of us is a house of cards in a snake-infested swamp, a quarter-mile off the end of the departure runway at JFK.

I do wish them good luck but there are likely far more struggling Am's than open FM slots, even if the band is expanded you're still asking listeners to buy a new receiver.

The new receiver isn't such a big deal as long as it's reasonably priced and the system actually works. If you really want to see support for digital radio from the majority of AM broadcasters, the following steps will be necessary:

1) Forget about the medium-wave in-band approach.

2) Open up 76-88 to radio and let AM licensees operate there with a fulltime digital signal that supports at least a 96 kbps codec.

3) Allow synchronized COFDM on-channel boosters to fill "dead spots" within the 2 mV/m contour.
 
I'm as pro-HD (on FM) as anyone here, but ALL lossy codecs begin to fall apart as the bitrate falls. At some point, they're unlistenable. Depending upon how it's pre-processed, 32kbps for a stereo signal with HDC (i.e. AM HD) is either at, or very near the "breaking point" for lots of people. Me included! I don't think all is lost, however. At this bitrate, HDC STRUGGLES to produce extended highs...allocating precious bits that SHOULD BE USED FOR THE MIDRANGE, where human hearing is most sensitive, and where artifacts are instantly noticable. Solution: limit frequency response to about 8-10khz prior to the codec, and keep audio compression and limiting to sane levels. Something quite listenable will emerge from the radio.

I know, the idea of limiting frequency response seems counter-intuitive. Consider this.

A)-there are no musical fundamentals above 2-3khz.
B)-the HDC codec is "replicating" highs above about 6khz at this bitrate anyway.
C)-we should listen WITH OUR EARS, not our prejudices and pre-conceived notions. Doing it this way SOUNDS BETTER!
 
Mike Walker said:
A)-there are no musical fundamentals above 2-3khz.
B)-the HDC codec is "replicating" highs above about 6khz at this bitrate anyway.
C)-we should listen WITH OUR EARS, not our prejudices and pre-conceived notions. Doing it this way SOUNDS BETTER!

The musical quality is in the harmonics. Otherwise, what you have is sine wave generator.

The replicated highs are strangely off pitch and distorted. And I am listening with my ears. When I hear the same song on HD and wideband analog, there is a very noticable difference.
 
Mike Walker said:
B)-the HDC codec is "replicating" highs above about 6khz at this bitrate anyway.

The word "replicating" sounds uncomfortably close to "synthesizing" Maybe this is why the highs sound shrill and out of pitch, synthesizers are notorious for being out of pitch, becoming worse as they go up the musical scale.
 
KB1OKL said:
Mike Walker said:
B)-the HDC codec is "replicating" highs above about 6khz at this bitrate anyway.

The word "replicating" sounds uncomfortably close to "synthesizing" Maybe this is why the highs sound shrill and out of pitch, synthesizers are notorious for being out of pitch, becoming worse as they go up the musical scale.

All digital audio is synthesis, it's just a matter of how detailed the template is.

I do agree with Mr Walker in that cutting back on the highs would improve AM iboc quality if the coding is re-written as was done after the disasterous attempt at 20K bandwidth 5 years ago.

Lino
 
LinoNYC said:
Sorry, but the AM codec does not "eliminate" distortion -- it substitutes a different, more dissonant form of distortion.

-Your opinion, the average listener would probably disagree

No, he is right. The AM codec distortion, which is what it is, is much less tolerable than most analog abnormalities. Add that to the disruption of terrestrial broadcasting brought on by HD AM and it is clearly a win-win situation for this wonderful tech ::)

LinoNYC said:
Again, to the average person the rolled-off often distorted audio of most AM radios isn't very appealing. Think for a minute then answer why within less than two generations AM radio went from dominant in all age groups to a medium catering to old people with hucksters and reactionary crackpots?

Easy. Because of very good campaigns to sell FM stereo equipment in the 70's that branded AM as sounding "bad". Listeners picked up the torch and ran with it. The same can't be said today when there are other choices.

It's not that difficult to hear quality in a well processed AM station out of a radio made in 1975. The same cannot be said for a radio made merely 5 years later, when the obvious push for FM made the type font and bandwidth of AM shrink.
 
Sorry, but the AM codec does not "eliminate" distortion -- it substitutes a different, more dissonant form of distortion.
-Your opinion, the average listener would probably disagree

No, he is right. The AM codec distortion, which is what it is, is much less tolerable than most analog abnormalities. Add that to the disruption of terrestrial broadcasting brought on by HD AM and it is clearly a win-win situation for this wonderful tech Roll Eyes

From a strictly aesthetic standpoint, I agree however when you demonstrate AM analog side-by-side with AM-hd, the iboc allways wins with average people. I've done this over three dozen times with friends visiting here, even when i point out the artifacts they allways preferr the hd.

The "disruption" is to dx'ing, your station would not have implemented it if that
were a consideration.

Easy. Because of very good campaigns to sell FM stereo equipment in the 70's that branded AM as sounding "bad"

That presumes advertising could fool people's ears. You are probably too young to remember the early 70's when the transistion of music to FM really took hold. The AM stations had the money, promotions and personalities but even to us kids FM sounded better ((I'am 51 btw).

It's not that difficult to hear quality in a well processed AM station out of a radio made in 1975.

But there is nothing magical about 1975. It might have been easier to find a quality AM section 33 years ago but the average was still rather bleak by then.

Your station has one of the very few formats that I see as long-term viable on AM...but what happens if your parent co. decides to simulcast it on say 92.3? I'd bet that within a year most of the listeners would be over there.

Lino
 
LinoNYC said:
That presumes advertising could fool people's ears. You are probably too young to remember the early 70's when the transistion of music to FM really took hold. The AM stations had the money, promotions and personalities but even to us kids FM sounded better ((I'am 51 btw).

I remember the transition well. The death of music on AM was a very complex phenomenon, with a lot of things coming into play:

--- better sound on FM
--- availability of musical formats on FM that weren't available on AM
--- better receiving equipment
--- simulcasting of MTV with FM stations
--- death of influential AM station owners, or sale of assets by them
--- mainstreaming of "underground" artists and DJ's

Many other factors. The perception among kids in my home town was that FM was only for old fogie formats like easy listening. It didn't have the "coolness" factor. With only one or two stations receivable in the town, that perception was true in that locality. A single new station - that played country unfortunately - changed the perception about FM overnight. It was suddenly "cool" to kids who liked country because the stations played something they wanted to hear. Us rock fans were left out, but soon discovered faint signals from a town 120 miles away, and the DX revolution was underway in our home town. Those who couldn't afford better tuners could hear rock music on FM over the cable - it had an annoying "buzz" but was listenable. There was an "underground" rock station that had the image of flying in the face of the establishment, and of playing music "forbidden" on AM. It was on the cable, hundreds of kids discovered something cool and new - something from the big city 300 miles away, something they wanted to hear in rock-starved country bumpkin Midland, TX. Every kid jury rigged the cable to their previously useless FM radio. Some of us discovered FM went 300 miles and we got stations that weren't on the cable - international rock, mellow soul, smooth jazz on a PBS station. Kraftwerk and other artists that weren't even on cable. Kids who were offspring of oil rich families were buying fabulous DX setups, antennas started sprouting all over neighborhoods.

It was ALL about the music - country fans had their FM station, rock fans could get stations on cable - 8 tracks and cassettes had to do in cars. Closer to Dallas, in Abilene, I've heard of cases where a kids would go park somewhere, jury rig an antenna, and kids would do their partying around a car listening to KZEW from Dallas. I'm not making this stuff up. Remember, no ipods at the time.

The creative new formats are long gone, KZEW, KNUS, the innovative shows on KERA - all gone. Perhaps outlived their usefulness. But it was a revolution in music, at least locally. Local AM stations didn't keep up with the changing musical trends, FM gladly stepped into the niche.

This is just one story, of Midland, TX, and the transition. There are probably hundreds or thousands of stories of how people discovered FM, but the common threads are probably creative new music formats. Which is one reason why I say HD-2 is an opportunity for HD radio that the industry dare not squander on more of the same, or satellite and streaming really will swamp HD in the race for consumer spending.
 
LinoNYC said:
From a strictly aesthetic standpoint, I agree however when you demonstrate AM analog side-by-side with AM-hd, the iboc allways wins with average people. I've done this over three dozen times with friends visiting here, even when i point out the artifacts they allways preferr the hd.

The question is: how are you testing this? Using the analog side of the HD radio (poor at best) or seperate radios, with a properly design analog section?

LinoNYC said:
That presumes advertising could fool people's ears. You are probably too young to remember the early 70's when the transistion of music to FM really took hold. The AM stations had the money, promotions and personalities but even to us kids FM sounded better ((I'am 51 btw).

What was it really the drew you to FM in the early 70's? Was it the sound of FM, or the music and the way it was presented (usually with less inventory and "clutter" than its AM brothers). The average consumer will believe buzzwords, be it over the years Hi-Fi (used on almost anything with a speaker more than 3" big), Stereophonic or Digital (burned to death) and the words are so generalized they lose their meaning.

LinoNYC said:
But there is nothing magical about 1975. It might have been easier to find a quality AM section 33 years ago but the average was still rather bleak by then.

As someone who owns more than a few radios in my collection, 1975 was just an average I pulled out when you could possibly find a quality radio from the likes of Panasonic (coming into their own) and General Electric (long before Thompson Electronics) easily with a very fair balance between selectivity and fidelity. Heck, I can go back to a late 60's Channel Master, where on a local AM running 10k audio there isn't alot of difference between a heavily processed FM and the AM (and the AM still maintains more than acceptable selectivity). Of course, this radio is almost useless on an HD station.

LinoNYC said:
Your station has one of the very few formats that I see as long-term viable on AM...but what happens if your parent co. decides to simulcast it on say 92.3? I'd bet that within a year most of the listeners would be over there.

Possibly local listeners, but FAN has listeners over Suffolk County Long Island, the Jersey Shore, upstate NY and CT where the FM is spotty (and the HD non-existant) that would rely on the analog AM for service, or the internet. In fact, as I write this, I am at home on Long Island and cannot hear WXRK on my radio in Suffolk County clearly, but I am listening to Mike & Chris on WFAN with no problem on a late 60's Candle portable.
 
wgliradio said:
[Possibly local listeners, but FAN has listeners over Suffolk County Long Island, the Jersey Shore, upstate NY and CT where the FM is spotty (and the HD non-existant) that would rely on the analog AM for service, or the internet. In fact, as I write this, I am at home on Long Island and cannot hear WXRK on my radio in Suffolk County clearly, but I am listening to Mike & Chris on WFAN with no problem on a late 60's Candle portable.

That was the first radio I have ever seen capable of CLEARLY picking up a ton of SW stations inside a completely windowless concrete building (the junkstore the radio came from), with fluorescent lights going. And the MW was no slouch in there either. :eek:

Also, people keep yammering about the Internet radio, the Internet radio. You can shove your precious "Internet audio" where the sun can't shine. Internet radio is not portable and will never be reliable enough to give near ZERO DROPOUT reception the way MW/SW and yes....even FM can. :p
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
LinoNYC said:
That presumes advertising could fool people's ears. You are probably too young to remember the early 70's when the transistion of music to FM really took hold. The AM stations had the money, promotions and personalities but even to us kids FM sounded better ((I'am 51 btw).

I remember the transition well. The death of music on AM was a very complex phenomenon, with a lot of things coming into play:

--- better sound on FM
--- availability of musical formats on FM that weren't available on AM
--- better receiving equipment
--- simulcasting of MTV with FM stations
--- death of influential AM station owners, or sale of assets by them
--- mainstreaming of "underground" artists and DJ's

Many other factors. The perception among kids in my home town was that FM was only for old fogie formats like easy listening. It didn't have the "coolness" factor. With only one or two stations receivable in the town, that perception was true in that locality.

Exactly in my city is was WSRS "Worcester's Stereo Radio Station" it played elevator music

A single new station - that played country unfortunately - changed the perception about FM overnight. It was suddenly "cool" to kids who liked country because the stations played something they wanted to hear. Us rock fans were left out, but soon discovered faint signals from a town 120 miles away, and the DX revolution was underway in our home town. Those who couldn't afford better tuners could hear rock music on FM over the cable - it had an annoying "buzz" but was listenable. There was an "underground" rock station that had the image of flying in the face of the establishment, and of playing music "forbidden" on AM. It was on the cable, hundreds of kids discovered something cool and new - something from the big city 300 miles away, something they wanted to hear in rock-starved country bumpkin Midland, TX. Every kid jury rigged the cable to their previously useless FM radio. Some of us discovered FM went 300 miles and we got stations that weren't on the cable - international rock, mellow soul, smooth jazz on a PBS station. Kraftwerk and other artists that weren't even on cable. Kids who were offspring of oil rich families were buying fabulous DX setups, antennas started sprouting all over neighborhoods.

It was ALL about the music - country fans had their FM station, rock fans could get stations on cable - 8 tracks and cassettes had to do in cars. Closer to Dallas, in Abilene, I've heard of cases where a kids would go park somewhere, jury rig an antenna, and kids would do their partying around a car listening to KZEW from Dallas. I'm not making this stuff up. Remember, no ipods at the time.

The creative new formats are long gone, KZEW, KNUS, the innovative shows on KERA - all gone. Perhaps outlived their usefulness. But it was a revolution in music, at least locally. Local AM stations didn't keep up with the changing musical trends, FM gladly stepped into the niche.

In my case it was WBCN 104.1 ( Boston Concert network) in Boston, one of the first "underground" stations in the country, I was 15 in 1968 and that was THE cool station to listen to, they played everything from Hendrix, Country Joe and The fish, Jethro Tull, BB King, Muddy Waters, Roland Kirk, Miles Davis, folk music and this was all in the same set sometimes, the commercials were read by the DJ's who were all very cool of course. It called itself the American revolution, this was totally unheard of, the jocks picked their own music with only a little input from the PD, this was great stuff compared to top 40 AM, all of a sudden AM was old fogie stuff. WBCN did not come in well here in Worcester MA at that time either so we would fool with the antennas on the console stereos to get it in, the AM stations boomed in here and WBCN faded in and out at 40 miles from Boston (kind of like HD does at 8 miles from the Empire state building), and was buzzy but we put up with it because it was new and exciting, it did not sound better than AM at that time unless you lived in Boston. This station was great until the late 70's when they were sold which precipitated a strike right around the same time as the movie FM was out which they ultimately lost as the station was never the same after that, they just gradually went downhill after that into blandness although it was still good for much of the early 80's. WBCN used to break all sorts of bands, a lot of the big Boston bands had their start on 'BCN they played local bands, had a local top ten every week, went out on the community, it was quite a station, there's really nothing left that I now of today that compares with those kind of stations.

The creative new formats are long gone, KZEW, KNUS, the innovative shows on KERA - all gone. Perhaps outlived their usefulness. But it was a revolution in music, at least locally. Local AM stations didn't keep up with the changing musical trends, FM gladly stepped into the niche.

This is just one story, of Midland, TX, and the transition. There are probably hundreds or thousands of stories of how people discovered FM, but the common threads are probably creative new music formats. Which is one reason why I say HD-2 is an opportunity for HD radio that the industry dare not squander on more of the same, or satellite and streaming really will swamp HD in the race for consumer spending.
 
author=wgliradio

From a strictly aesthetic standpoint, I agree however when you demonstrate AM analog side-by-side with AM-hd, the iboc allways wins with average people. I've done this over three dozen times with friends visiting here, even when i point out the artifacts they allways preferr the hd. [/quote]

The question is: how are you testing this? Using the analog side of the HD radio (poor at best) or seperate radios, with a properly design analog section?


This wasn't a particularly scientific test, the Acurian is located on the dining room table also in the room is a Sherwood a-v/ht receiver with paradigm sub, dcm center and AR and Energy speakers. I set the Acurian to "normal" (closest to flat) and connect it's output to the main system which also has AM albeit typical narrow but clean.

Several of these guests stayed overnight in a bedroom with a bose acoustic wave (large one) which has clean but narrow AM.

None of these sets are comparable to the 1954 RCA commercial tuner (I got it from the Philadelphia convention center while working a show there years ago) nor the 1973 KLH tuner but they do represent typical narrow band response (minus overload distortion) that most people hear with AM.

From a persoanl standpoint, I'd preferr mid-to late 60's AM on the Fisher 800 (three step bandwidth) and 1958 Zenith am-fm set on which AM was brighter and often cleaner than fm. These are the two main sets I grew up with and still have but most of my friends had the usuall mediocre AM sets and it was just a matter of time before FM offered us something and stole am's bacon.


What was it really the drew you to FM in the early 70's? Was it the sound of FM, or the music and the way it was presented (usually with less inventory and "clutter" than its AM brothers).

For me the transistion happened in late 1966. As a child I worked in modeling and tv also hung out in my Father's galleries where I met many of the artists represented there. All of these people started talking about WOR-fm after they went "progressive" with DJ's that fall.

Gradually over the next 3-4 years my kid friends got fm radios and started listening but AM was still king untill WOR-fm became 99X in OCT 1972. I didn't care for 99X but by early 1974 the contest was pretty much over..fm won with almost every contemporary of mine.

As someone who owns more than a few radios in my collection, 1975 was just an average I pulled out when you could possibly find a quality radio from the likes of Panasonic (coming into their own) and General Electric (long before Thompson Electronics) easily with a very fair balance between selectivity and fidelity. Heck, I can go back to a late 60's Channel Master, where on a local AM running 10k audio there isn't alot of difference between a heavily processed FM and the AM (and the AM still maintains more than acceptable selectivity). Of course, this radio is almost useless on an HD station.

As a sideline in 1990 I bought a1958 Philco tube/battery set at a house sale. The set is perfect and very late 50's styled so I decided to take it to the beach. I constructed the "B" bat with a string of ten cheap 9 volt betteries and the the 7 volt "A" with "C" cells.

Works great, only problem was not much beach music on AM anymore but it did receive Jerry Blavat's WPGR from Philladelphia well out on Rockaway beach in Queens. I have a number of these old tube portables but this is the only one I take out. Most people don't even notice it.


Lino
 
LinoNYC said:
author=wgliradio
What was it really the drew you to FM in the early 70's? Was it the sound of FM, or the music and the way it was presented (usually with less inventory and "clutter" than its AM brothers).

For me the transistion happened in late 1966. As a child I worked in modeling and tv also hung out in my Father's galleries where I met many of the artists represented there. All of these people started talking about WOR-fm after they went "progressive" with DJ's that fall.

It sounds like my comments hit a responsive chord. The "underground" and slightly subversive nature of album rock FM stations in the late 60's and early 70's was a part of the migration of music to FM. In my case, the extended frequency response and stereo was nice, but it didn't quite make up for the vast distance over which I had to receive FM stations (330 miles). Any sonic advantage went away with each fade as a plane flew overhead. So it was probably more the music, and the sense I was doing something "subversive" to "the man" that dominated local radio stations with country music, sterilized and sanitized top-40. There really was an alternative - all it took was the equipment to DX and I had all this great underground album rock most of my friends never heard of, but quickly started to like the moment they heard it on my setup. Thankfully, the local record stores were not as repulsed by it as the local station owners were! There was an ample stock of underground record albums - proving that the record companies were doing a decent job of distribution, at least in my redneck corner of west Texas.

Does HD radio have an underground movement going for it? Maybe - if they can prove to enough consumers that HD-2 channels carry something they want - but can't get - on regular stations. Classical music on NPR stations when conventional wisdom is jazz and talk. Christian rock when conventional wisdom is CCM for 25 to 54 year old women. Straight hip-hop when community standards dictate R&B with a nod to gospel. But it has to be publicized - and the wide availability of streaming and satellite complicates the picture. It is not 1969 when you have a captive audience desperate for these "subversive" formats. The captives are already free with streaming and satellite. You got to make it easier to listen to HD radio. With that in mind, here is a list of suggestions to revive HD radio:

(1) Abandon AM HD in favor of C-Quam.
(2) Every FM station that has an HD-2 channel - immediately buy up an available AM frequency with C-Quam on it, and program HD-2 on it.
(3) Make sure the software is modified in all new HD radios to allow a blend from HD-2 to the feed on AM.

The first three give a graceful way for HD-2 to be available to the majority of people, and not to go silent when the HD lock is lost. At least something will be audible, and it can be fairly high quality stereo like HD-2.

(4) Promote the heck out of HD-2 formats that are different, niche-ey, and have a fanatical following that isn't served at all. Smooth Jazz in DFW is a good example. Christian rock in the heart of anti-CCM Jimmy Swaggart territory like Baton Rouge. Classical music in jazz fan strongholds. Those are three formats at least that have a fanatical following that are NOT going to listen to anything else. Add ethnic and foreign language programming into the mix, you might come up with a dozen fanaticaly audiences that will pay ANYTHING for an HD radio. So much the better if that format is NOT on satellite (one of the satellite networks dropped "The Torch" Christian rock format not too long ago to howls of protest). You find something popular satellite drops for something mundane, you got every one of its fans devoted to HD radio.
(5) Run samples of the HD-2 format on the analog and HD-1 channels and make sure people know it is available full time if they get an HD radio. Drop the stations between the stations stuff that is confusing people. And occasionally making somebody a DX'er of a rim shot. I hear that stupid ad campaign, the first thing I'm going to do is go "exploring". And a lot of stations show up that aren't found with the "seek" button. Is that really what the HD ads are supposed to do - make people tune around? I thought the message was supposed to be "buy a new radio and hear stuff you can't hear now".

I don't know if the thing can be salvaged, or if the industry should even try at this point. It may be too late. But if "getting something subversive that the big radio owners don't really want me to hear locally" is part of what fueled the AM to FM movement - maybe this blueprint could help. It sure can't hurt at this point. I'm seeing more and more of the AM stereo debacle in HD radio every day.
 
rbrucecarter5 said:
It was ALL about the music - country fans had their FM station, rock fans could get stations on cable - 8 tracks and cassettes had to do in cars. Closer to Dallas, in Abilene, I've heard of cases where a kids would go park somewhere, jury rig an antenna, and kids would do their partying around a car listening to KZEW from Dallas. I'm not making this stuff up. Remember, no ipods at the time.

The acceptance of FM most certainly was about music and the content available on FM. The improved audio quality was a secondary benefit, not appreciated (or even noticed) by all.

My first FM car radio was actually an under dash adapter that played through the factory AM radio. It did not sound better than AM. If anything, it was actually worse than AM because of fading, multi-path and the fact that the AM modulator tended to drift a bit. Even so, as an 18 year old, I was willing to shell out $29.95 (nearly $300 in today’s money) for the converter. That was because I could hear stuff on FM that was not available on FM. The HD folks should take note of history and program their HD-2 channels accordingly. History does repeat itself.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom